I’ll Give You Dozens of Terrorists, You Give Me One Journalist, OK?

It’s a bit more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that we are turning loose Iranian terrorists in exchange for the release of Roxana Saberi, plus, probably, three British hostages. The first payment arrived today in Tehran, to a triumphant reception. Ugh.

The terrorists in question are officers in the Iranian Quds Force, the foreign arm of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. They were captured in Irbil, Iraq, in January, 2007, as the “surge” was getting under way. A few weeks earlier, other Iranians had been arrested in Baghdad. For our military leaders, it was an open and shut case. The Iranian military officers had been involved in several operations in which Americans had been killed, and, even though they claimed “diplomatic status,” the evidence against them was thoroughly convincing. One American official who saw the documentation at the time told me “they are not just enemies; they’re criminals.”

Nonetheless, from the very beginning, powerful American officials argued that the Iranian terrorists should be handled on an “arrest and release” basis, because to hold them for any significant length of time would enrage the mullahs. As the New York Sunwrote editorially:

On one side are the Central Intelligence Agency, which has flubbed nearly every assignment it’s had in this war, and the State Department, whose very DNA seems to make it incapable of supporting a hard line. These agencies are arguing that the Iranians will escalate their war against us if the captives are not returned.

On the other side are the Marines, special operations forces, and the Army, all arguing that the risk is too great if these men are at large. This is apparently a decision — like the decision to conduct the raid that led to their arrest — that is going to have to be made by the commander in chief. It should be an easy call for a war president.

It was, in the event, an easy call: the “Irbil Five” remained in American detention. Every time somebody in the American government suggested it would be good to release them, the military leaders spat. Until now.

American officials, eager to pretend that “their hands were tied,” will point you to the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which in theory gives the Iraqi Government control over everything and everybody in the country, including detainees. The language is typical legalese, but American military officers recognized that the Agreement would oblige us, on request, to turn over all the prisoners we had captured, from Day One. For that reason, they fought a heated but ultimately unsuccessful battle against it. Some of our highest ranking officers begged their civilian commanders to make special provision for the likes of the Irbil Five. They didn’t want them back on the battlefield, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, areas where their lethal expertise would inevitably be used to kill more Americans and our coalition allies.

But the government’s excuses only go so far, for like the provisions that give the Iraqis total control of their air space, they are theoretically binding but practically impossible to carry out, at least in the short term. Iraq does not have the facilities for all of our prisoners, any more than it can patrol and defend its air space, or provide air cover for ground operations. So it was understood by both sides that Iraqi sovereignty would be extended gradually. And our men and women on the ground intended to hold the Iranian terrorists–of whom there are more than thirty important agents and officers, and many hundred lower level operatives–as long as they could.

But then Roxana Saberi was thrown into Evin Prison in Tehran, and the Obama Administration started negotiations with the mullahs. I have been told that the key office in the American Government was Vice President Joe Biden’s, and that the Swiss Government (our official liaison to Tehran) played an active role. In early May, the deal was arranged: more than thirty Iranian “VIP” detainees would be released (first to the Iraqis, then to the Iranians), and then, in the fullness of time, several hundred (repeat, several hundred) others of less importance. Within days, Iraqi leader Maliki flew to Iran to work out the details. Saberi was quickly released, and the triumphal return to Iran for the Five was scheduled for shortly after the Iranian elections.

Laith is the brother of Qais Qazali, the commander of the Qazali network, which is better known as the Asaib al Haq, or the League of the Righteous. Qais Qazali was a spokesman and senior aide to Mahdi Army leader Muqtada al Sadr. The terror group, which was part of the Mahdi Army until the spring of 2008, has received extensive financial and military support from Iran’s Qods Force, the external division that backs Hezbollah and is tasked with supporting the Khomeinist Islamist revolution.

On the occasion of Qazali’s release, the United States government did not spread its arms and say “what could we do? It’s part of the deal,” they described it “as part of a reconciliation effort” as well as an attempt to secure the release of captive British hostages, according to a report in The New York Times,” as Roggio wrote.

The British hostages are yet another complicating factor. The Iranians held five of them, civilian workers rounded up in Iraq. The Iranians demanded the release of some of their terrorists in Guantanamo, and various other humiliating acts by the British Government, including, at last report, public endorsement of Ahmadinezhad’s “reelection.” As the negotiations played out, the Brits made a series of gestures to Hezbollah, and asked us to release various Iranian prisoners, from Guantanamo to Iraq (Qazali apparently being one such). Last time I checked, two of the unfortunate British souls turned up dead. Perhaps the failure to accept Iranian conditions explains the recent vitriol against the British government.

But at least some powerful Iranians have found some nice words for the American government, although others continue the “Death to America!” chant so typical of the regime. And what were those nice words? A description of American surrender to Iran’s nuclear intentions:

“America accepts a nuclear Iran, but Britain and France cannot stand a nuclear Iran,” Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister, said in an interview on state television on Wednesday.

Why would Velayati, one of the nastiest characters in the cabal around Supreme Leader Khamenei, say such a thing? My guess is that American acceptance was wigwagged to the Iranians during the Saberi negotiations by an authoritative administration personage.

All of these humiliating concessions have been made in the name of the need for serious talks between Washington and Tehran. But if Velayati is telling the truth, we’ve already given away the whole store. If there are going to be further talks, they will be of the sort we’ve seen in recent days with the Russians: fluff and circumstance.

As I’ve often said, God has an exquisite sense of humor, and it would certainly be delicious, and perhaps even Divine, if the mullahcracy were to fall just as its vision of bringing America to her knees seemed about to be fulfilled. In case you missed it, Iran’s highest-ranking clerical leader, the Ayatollah Montazeri, just issued a fatwa that declares the current regime illegitimate, and tells the Iranian people that they are entitled to remove it.

I am told by people who study these documents that the Montazeri fatwa is virtually identical to the one issued by his one-time mentor, the Ayatollah Khomeini, shortly before the overthrow of the shah. They are words with teeth, and there are many Iranians who will act on them.

Hell, there’s millions of Iranians trying to overthrow the regime right now, they didn’t need the fatwa.

Faster, Please! Please…

Click here to view the 31 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

31 Comments, 31 Threads

1.
David W. Lincoln

Michael, both of us realize the validity of stuff on paper is debatable. Whether it was the Munich Pact that Chamberlain was waving around in 1938, or the Nazi-Soviet pact signed
in 1939.

Just because words are on paper does not mean that they are imbued with all the attributes that are in harmony with the better angels of our nature – and they never will.

Personally, I feel that the mullahs waited 30 years for Obama to finish what Carter started. They could not tell how long it would take, but once in a while the american electorate throws a tantrum. There are games where winning requires a mistake on the part of the opponent. In practice this is the handicap of democracies over those who are obsessed with the permanence of their power. On the other hand, when they wake up, democracies can also find their energy, and tyrants eventually get their comuppance. Legally or otherwise, the people in the street have a vote, however dearly they pay for it.

Are Obama’s political survival instincts trapping him on the wrong side of history? He is acting like for whom eyes on the prize means eyes on the Nobel prize! In any case it looks like the race is in the final sprint. The theocracy crumbles first of it gets the nukes first?

30 years ago, many iranians left ther home to make their life in the west, and many of them started businesses or otherwise achieved professional success. One of them warned me that things would get very bad, but he declined my requests for elaborations. He just said “It’s worse than you can possibly imagine”. He must have thought that I will find soon enough, and there was no point in jeopardizing my ability to sleep at night in the meantime.

Can they help the counter-revolution from afar? As Michael Ledeen has long admonished, “Faster, Please!”. But for now, Dr. Ledeen, please take it easy after the surgery.

As a civilian advisor on COIN and Rule of Law related matters my second tour with the U.S. Army in Iraq I have two modest points to add (based on open sources):
1. Iraqi officials have gotten the message that important segments of the U.S. government (and now especially the administration) want to pull out of Iraq and recognize it as partially within the Iranian sphere of influence. Consequently Iraqi officials have every incentive to work for Iranian goals and obstruct and insult our forces.
2. We are now making the sorts of concessions to terrorists which we have for some time pressured Israel to make. How many times in the past have we seen Israel release hundreds of Palestinian terrorists in exchange for a few [sometimes dead] hostages? This reminds me of the old truism, “The Jew is the canary in the coal mine of history”.

the Ayatollah Montazeri, just issued a fatwa that declares the current regime illegitimate, and tells the Iranian people that they are entitled to remove it.

well, this is the remnent farce that the Mullahs throw at the westernies appetite for change there, but it ain’t any difference, the one that pulls the strings is still big boss Rafsandjani, that needs to demonise Khameinei to insure his predominence among the black mullahcraty crabs. So if it is the iranian population that demands to remove Khameinei, not a problem, they’ll make it, and there then the westernies will think that the iranian population protests won, when in fact these persons are cheated in the same ol way. No matter the deads that occured during the protests, they are still lower than the hangings they do during a whole year. And progessively Khameinei will be conveniently taken out of the screen, he still will have a part in the plot, but less apparent

Council of Discernment of the Regime (CDR : Rafsandjani, Moussavi, Rezaï & Karroubi) Khamenei, out

Also, I didn’t hear Moussavi talk against the illegal retention of foreigners, that would be hold as an act of war in other times.
He didn’t, cuz he is a perpetual member of the evil council !

BTW the french studend Clotile Reiss and co-lecturer in Teheran university, is hold in Mullahcracy jails, guess, she was spying, of course they need such an innocent prey to press on France’s policies vs Iran

I could give a crap if these guys get let loose to terrorize Iraq. The American government exists solely to protect Americans and American interests. We get our citizen back, the Iranians get these guys who would have been released anyway if they have diplomatic status with the Iraqi government. The Iraqis need to man up if they really want to live in a decent country.

When Ms. Saberi was released, obviously all of us within driving distance of her home in North Dakota were grateful for her safe return home.

However.

However.

However. I have yet to hear anyone, in public, by written or spoken word, take her to task for her foolishness in staying in Iran last fall after her right to work under previous conditions had expired.

Since she holds dual citizenship with Iran, she was not naive about the realities.

She “took a chance” on being able to get by with it, “as long as possible”…which was apparently sometime in January when she was arrested.

So thanks for nothing, Ms. Saberi. The pending havoc from these terrorists will have been made possible by your foolishness.

9. progressive watch….you’re right on. Any excuse would have suited for Col. obama. I just don’t think Roxana Saberi is a complete hero just because she made a stupid judgment with fairly complete knowledge and handed him that excuse.

Those who are (rightfully) outraged and offended by the Obama administration’s decision to negotiate with terrorists should not be surprised. This is a man who refuses to use the word terror when describing barbaric Islamist onslaughts.

It should be noted that for quite some time I have been similarly appalled and outraged with Israel’s leaders who have released thousands ! of terrorists, some multiple murderers, for dead bodies and scraps of bones.Not a live one among the bunch, except for the drug dealing Tannenbaum.

It seems to me that both countries are led by cowardly leaders who are utterly void of statesmanship, where appeasement takes the place of their sworn obligations to secure the lives of their citizens.

I firmly believe that when the people have had enough of their treacherous leaders they will rise up and oust them.

I am reminded of Chapter 59, Book I of the Discourses: Leagues and Alliances with Republics are more to be trusted than those with Princes. I am also reminded of Chapter 14, Book II: Men often deceive themselves in believing that by Humility they can overcome Insolence.

So yes, I am concerned about Obama’s diplomacy. Although the Iranian government should not be trusted to be anything other than the proverbial scorpion on the frog’s back, I am more worried that the United States would betray its friends in the false hope of alliance with such a state.

Although I think Obama has gone too far in seeking to conciliate the Iranian government, it is not unwise to make pleasant noises. Although Obama’s concessions will only make the Iranian government more contemptuous, his coolness toward the Iranian opposition is not unwarranted. To quote Chapter 25, Book II, of the Discourses, ”The city of Sienna changed her government through the influence of the Florentines only when these aided her with small and unimportant favors; for had these favors been large and of importance, the Siennese would immediately have united in defense of the existing government.”

Although Reagan could be reasonably credited with hastening the fall of the Soviet empire by taking the side of the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe, it is noteworthy that the most important revolutions during his tenure were in Haiti and the Philippines. Remember, despite Reagan’s staunch anti-Communism, David Funderburk was recalled during his administration. The actual fall of the Eastern Bloc happened during the Bush administration, after Reagan left the Oval Office. I don’t think it was a mere coincidence.

Although I agree that Barack Obama’s apparent deal to release Iranian terrorists is shameful, it is also Reaganesque. Thus, I would be hesitant to recommend to Barack Obama that he act like Ronald Reagan lest he look to the Iran-Contra Affair as a template for how relations ought to be conducted with terrorist states. Perhaps Barack Obama should read Machiavelli instead.

Ms. Saberi has lost a lot of credibility. Many in her hometown are angry for her justifications in taking documentation with evading answering why she continued to report without press credentials and taking trips to Israel while living as an Iranian citizen. Many of these people donated money when the Saberi case was under the guise of being a freedom of press issue. Many journalists are also suspect of Saberi.

Although one should wish those who seek the overthrow of the Iranian government well, one should not succumb to the wishful thinking of exiles who think the Iranian government’s overthrow is just around the corner. It isn’t. I am reminded of Chapter 31, Book II of the Discourses: How dangerous it is to trust to the Representations of Exiles.

The question of whether fraud existed in the last Iranian election is moot. Mr. Khamanei called the results “divinely inspired”, which means that it does not matter how people voted in the first place. Iranians have been holding up signs (in English) asking, “WHERE’S MY VOTE?” My reply to those Iranians is that it never belonged to them in the first place, that Iran has a system of one man, one vote – and that vote belongs to the “Supreme Leader”. How does Mr. Khamanei know the election results are “divinely inspired”? He is the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, which seems to mean he, as the successor to Ruhollah the Erfan Mystic, is supposed to function as the gate to the Twelfth Imam.

So, who leads the Iranian opposition? Rafsanjani? Musavi? Right now, it appears to be led by Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. Montazeri could be seen as the Milovan Djilas of the Iranian state, representing its reigning ideology in distilled form. Far from representing the overthrow of the “Islamic Revolution”, he is actually the Iranian government’s last best hope for survival and renewal. Yes, Montazeri put out a fatwa calling for revolution. It is an important development, but the fatwa means neither the triumph of reformers nor the overthrow of Ahmadinejad and Khamanei. Instead, Iran faces a political stalemate that neither side can win. The fatwa is a tempest in the Khomeiniist teapot with limited effects upon Iranian public opinion. I think it is safe to say that most Iranians listen to neither Khamanei nor Montazeri; few Shi’ites would regard either one as their marja.

Mr. Ahmadinejad may have lost the real ballot count in the last election, but he does not lack support. The Basiji are far more powerful now than Romania’s Securitate were twenty years ago. (This is an apt comparison given that “Death to the Dictator” was also the rallying cry against Ceauşescu.) If the Eastern Bloc had had the surveillance technology Iran has now, it is debatable that the wave of revolutions in 1989 would have ever taken place. Moreover, there is reason to think Mr. Ahmadinejad can rely upon a solid 20% of the Iranian population to support him. If his solid support were less than 10%, the state would collapse internally. Yet, a solid 20% with a powerful government apparatus behind it can overpower the rest of the population even when the illegitimacy of the regime is manifest to the other 80%.

Can the Iranian government be overthrown? Yes. Is it likely anytime soon? No.

Although one should wish those who seek the overthrow of the Iranian government well, one should not succumb to the wishful thinking of exiles who think the Iranian government’s overthrow is just around the corner. It isn’t. I am reminded of Chapter 31, Book II of the Discourses: How dangerous it is to trust to the Representations of Exiles.

The question of whether fraud existed in the last Iranian election is moot. Mr. Khamanei called the results “divinely inspired”, which means that it does not matter how people voted in the first place. Iranians have been holding up signs (in English) asking, “WHERE’S MY VOTE?” My reply to those Iranians is that it never belonged to them in the first place, that Iran has a system of one man, one vote – and that vote belongs to the “Supreme Leader”. How does Mr. Khamanei know the election results are “divinely inspired”? He is the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, which seems to mean he, as the successor to Ruhollah the Erfan Mystic, is supposed to function as the gate to the Twelfth Imam.

So, who leads the Iranian opposition? Rafsanjani? Musavi? Right now, it appears to be led by Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. Montazeri could be seen as the Milovan Djilas of the Iranian state, representing its reigning ideology in distilled form. Far from representing the overthrow of the “Islamic Revolution”, he is actually the Iranian government’s last best hope for survival and renewal. Yes, Montazeri put out a fatwa calling for revolution. It is an important development, but the fatwa means neither the triumph of reformers nor the overthrow of Ahmadinejad and Khamanei. Instead, Iran faces a political stalemate that neither side can win. The fatwa is a tempest in the Khomeiniist teapot with limited effects upon Iranian public opinion. I think it is safe to say that most Iranians listen to neither Khamanei nor Montazeri; few Shi’ites would regard either one as their marja.

Mr. Ahmadinejad may have lost the real ballot count in the last election, but he does not lack support. The Basiji are far more powerful now than Romania’s Securitate were twenty years ago. (This is an apt comparison given that “Death to the Dictator” was also the rallying cry against Ceauşescu.) If the Eastern Bloc had had the surveillance technology Iran has now, it is debatable that the wave of revolutions in 1989 would have ever taken place. Moreover, there is reason to think Mr. Ahmadinejad can rely upon a solid 20% of the Iranian population to support him. If his solid support were less than 10%, the state would collapse internally. Yet, a solid 20% with a powerful government apparatus behind it can overpower the rest of the population even when the illegitimacy of the regime is manifest to the other 80%.

Can the Iranian government be overthrown? Yes. Is it likely anytime soon? No.

We the Muslims, in general “love the hostages.” the release of terrorists it is a kind of policy of the humiliating concessions, and it is very clear the risk is too great if these sort of people would be released , they are criminals and violent.
There are two options for dealing with terrorists, either strike them ruthlessly, or get them and hold them!!!
We must clean the face of earth from this sort of people.

My comment on Ms. Saberi’s predicament didn’t have to do with a desire to “blame her”…but a desire to stop seeing her presented as hapless victim/innocent bystander.

Maybe that aspect of the story was more apparent here in the upper Midwest because of her “hometown story” over which every print and TV journalist slobbered and to which they tied yellow ribbons, elevating her almost to heroine.

When American citizens, witting or not, help the cause of terrorists, it should be ok to note it and perhaps try to raise the general intelligence of ex pats–”don’t be stupid overseas since that might end up being useful to our enemies”.

For three days from July 22nd in front of UN building in NY there will be a hunger strike that will have people like Akbar Ganji. I also learned that the most famous Iranian singer Googoosh will also join this strike in the first day. I’m also hearing that many other well-known Iranians and also Americans will join this hunger strike.

Learned this morning that Friday Prayers attended by a million people in Tehran lead by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
did not go well. Seems as though whenever someone tried to get the crowd to repeat a chant like “death to America” the
crowd responded with “death to Russia.” Or, when the crowd heard the chant “death to Israel” the crowd responded
with “death to China.” To keep the crowd in the fray, chants like “Russia… China stay out of Iran” could be heard. Most
poignantly, media footage of demonstrators giving police flowers and talking with them was also captured.As usual,
mainstream media sources did not find it necessary to capture a million people rejecting their government. A small
inaccurate article, or more precisely a well spun version was published in the Chicago Tribune.

When I asked what we can do to help, I was told “we are already doing it…by reporting the truth.” When I asked “how
long will it take to get rid of the monsters controlling Iran,” I was told a month, three months, maybe six months. The
speaker added, “it will happen very quickly once one division like the Basiji, Police, Pasdaran refuse to support the
monsters.”

Based on what I heard this morning, I think the folks in Iran and Iranian Diaspora around the world that wants a Iranian
National Secular Party to be part of the next government need to get organized. Now. Others, I am told, like the Communists,
even though most Iranians hate them could also have a seat at the table of government.

When we start detecting the Palestinian, Syrian and other butchering mercenaries headed for places like Myanmar (Burma)
where the monsters controlling Iran today have stashed much of their stolen loot, freedom for Iran is close at hand.

Michael,
I have heard discretely that a US F-15 fighter jet was shot down over this past weekend in Afghanistan with the loss of both pilots.
This is very worrisome because it is unprecedented in that the plane didn’t crash due to mechanical reasons but was shot down. As far as I can tell, the Taliban & Al Qa’idah did not previously have the capability to shoot down American pilots. The ability to use shoulder fired missiles used so successfully against the Soviets has long passed along with the batteries used to operate them.
This begs the question: Who or What has changed and advanced their capabilities?
What do you think?
Regards,

I wanted to follow along and allow you to know how , a great deal I loved discovering your site today. I’d personally consider it the honor to operate at my company and be able to utilize tips discussed on your website and also participate in visitors’ remarks like this. Should a position associated with guest writer become available at your end, you should let me know.